From nicholas@uci.edu Sun Aug 05 00:36:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 07:36:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 11237 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 07:36:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 07:36:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 07:36:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17088; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:36:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:36:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: Cc: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Clarification on {be} vs. {pe} Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS In lesson 9 (http://www.opoudjis.net/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less9sumtcita.html), I claim that it is more usual for internal sumti with sumti tcita to be added with {pe} than {be}. Robin.CA queries this. My impression may have been mistaken; the examples I remember are reproduced in The Book, but John has carefully restricted his exx. to cmene, which of course can't take {be}. Are the claims made in that part of the lesson misleading? Opinions solicited. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias